http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: KANHIYALAL OMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.K. TRIVEDI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT24/09/1985

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA, R.B. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  111            1985 SCR  Supl. (3)   1  1985 SCC  (4) 628        1985 SCALE  (2)1370

ACT:      Constitution of  India 1950  -  Articles  324  and  327 Representation of  People Act  1951, Section  169 Conduct of Election Rules  1961, Rules  5 and  10  &  election  Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order 1968.      Symbols Order  - Whether  legislative  in  character  - Election Commission whether competent to issue Order.      Words & Phrases :      ’Superintendence, direction  and control’  - Meaning of Article 324 (1) Constitution of India 1950.

HEADNOTE:      The petitioner  in his  Writ  Petition  to  this  Court challenged the  Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order,  1968   contending  that  as  it  is  legislative  in character lt  could not  have been  issued by  the  Election Commission because  the Commission  is not  entrusted by law the  power   to  issue   such   an   Order   regarding   the specification, reservation and allotment of symbols that may be chosen  by the  candidates at  elections in parliamentary and assembly constituencies, and that there is no provision, constitutional or  legal which  justifies the recognition of political parties  for the  purposes  of  election.  It  was further contended that Article 324 of the Constitution which vests the power of superintendence, direction and control of all elections  to Parliament  and to  the Legislature  of  a State in  the Election  Commission cannot  be  construed  as conferring power  on the  Commission to  issue  the  Symbols Order, and  the Central  Government which had been delegated the  power  to  make  rules  under  &  Section  169  of  the Representation  of   People  Act,  1951  could  not  further delegate the  power to  make any  subordinate legislation in the form  of the  Symbols Order  to the  Commission, without itself being  empowered by  The Act  to  make  such  further delegation.      Dismissing the Writ Petition, 2 ^      HELD: 1.  In exercise  of the  powers  conferred  Under Article 324  of the  Constitution, read with rule 5 and rule 10 of  the Conduct  of Election  Rules,  1961  the  Election Commission of India issued the Election Symbols (Reservation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

and Allotment) Order in the year 1968 for the specification, reservation,  choice  and  allotment  of  symbols,  for  the recognition of political parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith. [15 C-D]      2. It  cannot be said that any of the provisions of the Election Symbols  (Reservation and  Allotment)  Order,  1968 suffers from  want of  authority on the part of the Election Commission which has issued it. [16 F]      3. The  power of  the Election  Commission to recognise political parties  and to  decide disputes  arising  amongst them or between splinter groups within a political party has been upheld  in Sadiq  Ali v. Election Commission  of India, [1972] 2  S.C.R. 318.  It also  upholds  the  power  of  the Commission to issue the Symbols Order and the power to issue the Symbols  Order was  held to be comprehended in the power of ’superintendence,  direction and  control’  of  elections vested in the Election Commission. [11G; 14A]      4. Even  if  the  powers  of  the  Election  Commission mentioned in  the Symbols  Order are  not traceable  to  the Representation  of  People  Act,  1951  or  the  Conduct  of Election Rules,  1961 the  power  of  the  Commission  under Article 324(1)  of the  Constitution which  are  plenary  in character would  encompass all such provisions. Article 324. Of the  Constitution operates  in areas  left unoccupied  by legislation and the words ’superintendence’ ’direction’, and ’control’ as  well as  ’conduct of  all elections’  are  the broadest terms  which would  include the  power to  make all such   provisions.    While   construing    the   expression ’superintendence, direction  and control’ in Article 324(1), one has  to remember  that every norm which lays down a rule of conduct  cannot possibly  be elevated  to the position of legislation  or   delegated  legislation.   There  are  some authorities or  persons in  certain grey  areas who  may  be sources of rules of conduct and who at the  same time cannot be equated  to authorities  or persons  who can make law, in the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence. A direction  may  mean  an  Order  issued  to  a  particular individual or  a precept  which many  may have to follow. It may be a specific or a general order. The source of power in this case  is the Constitution, the highest law of the land, which is  the repository  and source of all legal powers and any power granted by the Constitution for a specific purpose should be  construed liberally  80 that the object for which the power is 3      All Party  Hill Leaders’ Conference Shillong v. Captain M.A.   Sangma  & Ors. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 393, Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh  [1983] 1 S.C.R. 702, Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v.  The Chief  Election Commissioner,  New Delhi & Ors. [1978] 2  S.C.R. 272  and A.C.  Jose v.  Sivan Pillai & Ors. [1984] 3 S.C.R. 74, referred to.      5. Till  recently the  Constitution of  India  had  not expressly referred  to the  existence of  political parties, but by the amendments made to it by the Constitution (Fifty- Second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear recognition of political parties by the constitution. The Tenth Schedule to the  Constitution which  was added  by the above Amending Act acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets out the  circumstances when a member of Parliament or of the State Legislature  would be deemed to have defected from his political party  and would thereby be disqualified for being a member  of the House concerned. It is therefore, difficult to say  that the reference to recognition, registration etc. Of political  parties by  the Symbols  Order is unauthorised and against the political system adopted by our country. [11

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

E-F]

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  : Writ  Petition  No.  11738  of 1985.      (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).      Gobind Mukhoty,  R.P.. Gupta  and Miss  Kirti Gupta for the Petitioner.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  In this petition filed under Article 32  of   the  Constitution  the  petitioner  challenges  the constitutional validity of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)  Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Symbols Order’  which is  issued by  the Election Commission (hereinafter referred to as ’the Commission’). The principal contention  urged  by  the  petitioner  in  support  of  his contention is that the Symbols Order which is legislative in character could  not have  been  issued  by  the  Commission because the  commission is not entrusted by law the power to issue such an order regarding the specification, reservation and  allotment   of  symbols  that  may  be  chosen  by  the candidates  at   elections  in  parliamentary  and  assembly constituencies. It  is further urged that Article 324 of the Constitution  which  vests  the  power  of  superintendence, direction 4 and control  of all  elections  to  Parliament  and  to  the Legislature of a State in the Commission cannot be construed as conferring  the power  on the  Commission  to  issue  the Symbols Order .      It is  necessary to  set out the relevant provisions of law having a bearing on the above question at the outset for a proper  appreciation of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner.  Article 324  (1) of  the Constitution reads thus:           "324.(1)  The   superintendence,   direction   and           control of  the preparation of the electoral rolls           for,  and   the  conduct   of,  all  elections  to           Parliament and  to the  Legislature of every State           and of  elections to  the offices of President and           Vice-President held  under this Constitution shall           be vested  in a  Commission (referred  to in  this           Constitution as the Election Commission).      Articles 327 and 328 of the Constitution which vest the power of  making provisions  with respect  to  elections  on Parliament and  the  Legislatures  in  the  States  read  as follows :           "327.  Subject   to   the   provisions   of   this           Constitution, Parliament  may from time to time by           law make  provision with  respect to  all  matters           relating to,  or in  connection with, elections to           either House  of Parliament  or to  the  House  or           either  House  of  the  Legislature  of,  a  State           including the  preparation of electoral rolls, the           delimitation  of   constituencies  and  all  other           matters   necessary    for   securing    the   due           constitution of such House or Houses.           328.   Subject   to   the   provisions   of   this           Constitution and  in 80  far as  provision in that           behalf is  not made by Parliament, the Legislature           of a  State may  from time  to time  by  law  make           provision with respect to all matters relating to,           or in  connection with, the elections to the House

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

         or either  House of  the Legislature  of the State           including the  preparation of  electoral rolls and           all other  matters necessary  for securing the due           constitution of such House or Houses."      Article 327  of the  Constitution confers  the power on Parliament to  make by  law provision  with respect  to  all matters 5 relating to,  or in  connection with,  elections  to  either House of  Parliament or  to the House or either House of the Legislature  of   a  State   including  the  preparation  of electoral rolls,  the delimitation of constituencies and all other matters necessary for securing the due constitution of such House  or Houses  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the Constitution.  Article   328  of  the  Constitution  confers similar  power  on  the  Legislature  of  a  State  to  make provision with  respect to  all matters  relating to,  or in connection with,  the elections to the House or either House of the Legislature of the State including the preparation of electoral rolls and all other matters necessary for securing the due  constitution of such House or Houses subject to the provisions of the Constitution and in so far as provision in that behalf  is not  made by  Parliament. In exercise of the power  conferred   by  Article   327  of   the  Constitution Parliament has enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43  of 1951)  (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the Act’) providing for  the conduct  of elections  to the  Houses  of Parliament and  to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State,  the qualifications  and  disqualifications  for membership of  those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at  or in  connection with  such elections  and the decision of  doubts  and  disputes  arising  out  of  or  in connection with  such elections.  Section  169  of  the  Act empowers the  Central Government  to promulgate rules, after consultation with  the  Commission,  for  carrying  out  the purposes of  the Act.  In exercise  of the  said  power  the Central Government  has promulgated the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961  (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’the Rules’). Rules 5  and 10  of the  Rules which  are material  for  the purposes of this case read thus:           5. Symbols  for  elections  in  parliamentary  and           assembly  constituencies   -  (1)   The   Election           Commission shall,  by notification  in the Gazette           of India,  and in  the Official  Gazette  of  each           State, specify  the symbols  that may be chosen by           candidates  at   elections  in   Parliamentary  or           assembly constituencies  and the  restrictions  to           which their choice shall be subject.           (2) Subject  to any  general or  special direction           issued by  the Election  Commission  either  under           sub-rule (4)  or sub-rule (5) of rule 10, where at           any such election, more nomination papers than one           are delivered  by or on behalf of a candidate, the           declaration as  to symbols  made in the nomination           paper first delivered, and no other declaration as           to 6           symbols shall  be taken  into consideration  under           rule 10  even if  that nomination  paper has  been           rejected.           10. Preparation of list of contesting candidates           (4) At  an election in a parliamentary or assembly           constituency, where  a poll becomes necessary, the           returning officer  shall consider  the  choice  of           symbols expressed  by the contesting candidates in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

         their nomination  papers and shall, subject to any           general or special direction issued in this behalf           by the Election Commission -           (a) allot  a different  symbol to  each contesting           candidate in  conformity, as  far as  practicable,           with his choice; and           (b) if  more contesting  candidates than  one have           indicated their  preference for  the same  symbol,           decide by  lot to  which of  such  candidates  the           symbol will be allotted.           (5) The  allotment by the returning officer of any           symbol to  a candidate shall be final except where           it is  inconsistent with  any directions issued by           the Election  Commission in  this behalf  in which           case  the   Election  Commission  may  revise  the           allotment in such manner as it thinks fit.           (6) Every  candidate or  his election  agent shall           forth with  be informed  of the symbol allotted to           the candidate  and be  supplied  with  a  specimen           thereof by the returning officer."      Sub-rule (1)  of rule  5  of  the  Rules  empowers  the commission to  specify by  a notification  in the Gazette of India and in the Official Gazette of each State, the symbols that  may   be  chosen   by  candidates   at  elections   in Parliamentary  or   assembly      constituencies   and   the restrictions to  which their  choice shall  be subject. Sub- rule (4)  of rule  10 of  the  Rules  provides  that  at  an election in  a parliamentary or assembly constituency, where a  poll  becomes  necessary,  the  returning  officer  shall consider the  choice of  symbols expressed by the contesting candidates in  their nomination  papers and shall subject to any general  or special  direction issued  in this behalf by the Commission allot a 7 different symbol to each contesting candidate in conformity, as  far   as  practicable,  with  his  choice  and  if  more contesting  candidates   than  one   have  indicated   their preference for  the same  symbol, decide  by lot to which of such candidates the symbol will be allotted. Sub-rule (5) of rule  10  of  the  Rules  provides  that  the  allotment  by returning officer  of any  symbol to  a candidate  shall  be final except  where it  is inconsistent  with any directions issued by  the Commission  in this  behalf in which case the Commission may  revise the  allotment in  such manner  as it thinks fit. Under sub-rule (6) of rule 10 of the Rules every candidate or his election agent should be informed forthwith the symbol  allotted to  the candidate and is entitled to be supplied with a specimen thereof. Purporting to exercise its power under Article 324 of the Constitution read with rule 5 and rule  10 of the Rules, the Commission issued the symbols Order in  the year  1968 which is impugned in this petition. The Preamble to the Symbols Order reads thus :           "S.O. 2959  dated 31st  August, 1968 - Whereas the           superintendence,  direction  and  control  of  all           elections to  Parliament and to the Legislature of           every State  are vested  by  the  Constitution  of           India in the Election Commission of India;           And, whereas,  it is  necessary and  expedient  to           provide in  the interests of purity of election to           the  House  of  the  People  and  the  Legislative           Assembly of  every State  and in  the interests of           the  conduct  of-such  elections  in  a  fair  and           efficient   manner,    for   the    specification,           reservation, choice  and allotment of symbols, for           the recognition  of political  parties in relation

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

         thereto and for matters connected therewith.           Now,  therefore,   in  exercise   of  the   powers           conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution, read           with  rule  5  and  rule  10  of  the  Conduct  of           Elections  Rules,   1961,  and  all  other  powers           enabling  it   in  this   behalf,   the   Election           Commission of  India hereby  makes  the  following           Order."      The  expression   ’political  party’   is  defined   in Paragraph 2(1)(h) of the Symbols Order thus :           2.(1)(h) -  ’Political party’ means an association           or body of individual citizens of India registered           with the  Commission as  a political  party  under           paragraph 3 8           and  includes  a  political  party  deemed  to  be           registered with  the Commission  under the proviso           of sub-paragraph (2) of that paragraph;"      Paragraph 3  of the  Symbols Order  provides  that  any association or  body of individual citizens of India calling itself a  political party  and intending  to avail itself of the  provisions   of  the   Symbols  Order   shall  make  an application to  the Commission  for its  registration  as  a party for  the purposes of the Symbols Order. Sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of paragraph 3 of the Symbols Order provide for the  manner in which such applications should be made by associations and  bodies  calling  themselves  as  political parties  for   registration  with  the    Commission.  m  at paragraph empowers  the Commission  to consider all relevant particulars and  to decide  whether the  association or body should be  registered as  a political  party or  not and its decision in  that regard  is stated to be final. Paragraph 4 of the  Symbols  Order  provides  that  in  every  contested election  a   symbol  shall  be  allotted  to  a  contesting candidate in  accordance with  the provisions of the Symbols Order and  different symbols shall  be allotted to different contesting  candidates   at  an   election   in   the   same constituency. m  e symbols  specified by  the Commission are classified into two categories by paragraph 5 of the Symbols Order. They  are either  reserved or free. A reserved symbol is a  symbol which  is reserved  for a  recognised political party for  exclusive allotment  to contesting candidates set up by  that   party. A  free symbol is a symbol other than a reserved symbol  Paragraph 6  of the  Symbols Order provides for  the  classification  of  the  political  parties,  into recognised  political  parties  and  unrecognised  political parties. Amongst  the recognised political parties according to the  Symbols Order  there  are  two  categories,  namely, national parties  and the  State parties.  The Symbols Order further provides  for  the  determination  of  the  question whether a  candidate has been set up by a political party or not. It  deals with  the power  of the  Commission to  issue instructions to  unrecognised political  parties  for  their expeditious  recognition   on  fulfillment   of   conditions specified in  paragraph 6.  The power  of the  commission in relation to  splinter groups  or  rival    sections  of  the recognised  political   party  and  its  power  in  case  of amalgamation of two or more political parties are dealt with in  paragraphs  15  and  16  of  the  Symbols  Order.  Under paragraph 17 of the Symbols Order the Commission is required to publish  by one  or more  notifications in the Gazette of India lists  specifying the national parties and the symbols respectively reserved  for   them, the  State  parties,  the State or States in which they are 9

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

State parties and the symbols respectively reserved for them in  such State or States, unrecognised political parties and the State  or States  in which  they function  and the  free symbols for  each State.  Every such  list is required to be kept up-to-date,  as far  as possible. Under paragraph 18 of the Symbols  Order the Commission has reserved to itself the power  to   issue  instructions   and  directions   for  the clarification of any of the provisions of the Symbols Order, for the  removal  of  any  difficulty  which  may  arise  in relation to the implementation of any such provisions and in relation to  any matter  with respect to the reservation and allotment of  symbols and  recognition of political parties, for which  the Symbols  Order makes  no provision  or  makes insufficient provision  and provision  is in  the opinion of the Commission  necessary for the smooth and orderly conduct of elections.      The petitioner  claims to  be a  convener of  a  social organisation named  "SAPRYA" situated at 67/68, Daulat Ganj, Kanpur (U.P.)  which is  stated to have been established for the  purposes   of  propagating  ’National  truth’  and  for acquainting the  people of  India about the ideals cherished by it.  The petitioner  is aggrieved  by the  emergence of a large number  of political parties at the national level and at the  State level  which according  to him  has prejudiced seriously  the  ideals  of  a  democratic  country.  He  has referred in  the course  of the petition to the various acts committed by  the several  political parties which according to him  are highly  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  the country. He  contends that  the emergence of these political parties is  due to  the provisions  contained in the Symbols Order which  provides  for  the  registration  of  political parties, reservation  and allotment  of symbols in favour of various political parties. It is contended by the petitioner that the  Symbols Order  is liable  to be struck down on the ground that  the Commission  is not  empowered to  issue  it either under  the Constitution or the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is his contention that there is no provision, constitutional or  legal, which justifies the recognition of political parties for purpose of elections.      The constitutional scheme with regard to the holding of the elections  to Parliament  and the  State Legislatures is quite clear.  First, the  Constitution has  provided for the establishment of  a high  power body  to be  incharge of the elections to  Parliament and  the State  Legislatures and of elections to  the offices  of President  and Vice President. That body is the Commission. Article 324 of the Constitution contains detailed 10 provisions regarding  the constitution of the Commission and its general  powers. The  Commission consists  of the  Chief Election Commissioner  who is appointed by the President and it  may   also  consist   such  number   of  other  Election Commissioners, if  any, as  the President  may from  time to time fix,  who are  also to  be appointed  by the President. When  Election   Commissioners  are   appointed,  the  Chief Election  Commissioner   becomes   the   Chairman   of   the Commission.  There  is  provision  for  the  appointment  of Regional Commissioners to assist the Commission. In order to ensure the  independence and impartiality of the Commission, it is  provided that  the Chief  Election Commissioner shall not be  removed from his office except in like manner and on the like  grounds as  a Judge  of the Supreme Court of India and that  the   conditions of  service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall  not be  varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.  An Election  Commissioner  or  a  Regional

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

Commissioner cannot  be removed  from office  except on  the recommendation  of  the  Chief  Election  Commissioner.  The superintendence, direction  and control  of the  conduct  of elections referred  to in Article 324(1) of the Constitution are    entrusted    to    the    Commission.    The    words ’superintendence’, ’direction’ and ’control’ are wide enough to include  all powers  necessary for  the smooth conduct of elections. It  is, however,  seen that  Parliament has  been vested with  the power  to make law under Article 327 of the Constitution read  with Entry  72 of  List I  of the Seventh Schedule to  the Constitution  with respect  to all  matters relating to  the elections  to either House of Parliament or to the  House or  either House of the Legislature of a State subject to  the provisions  of the  Constitution. Subject to the provisions  of the Constitution and any law made in that behalf by  Parliament, the  Legislature of a State may under Article 328  read with  Entry 37  of List  II of the Seventh Schedule to  the  Constitution  make  law  relating  to  the elections to  the House  or Houses  of Legislature  of  that State. The  general powers of superintendence, direction and control of  the elections  vested in  the  Commission  under Article 324(1)  naturally are subject to any law made either under Article  327 or under Article 328 of the Constitution. The word  ’election’ in  Article 324 is used in a wide sense so as  to include  the entire   process  of  election  which consists of  several stages and it embraces many steps, some of which  may have an important bearing on the result of the process. India  is a  country which  consists of millions of voters. Although  they are  quite conscious  of their duties politically, unfortunately,  a large  percentage of them are still illiterate.  Hence there  is need for using symbols to denote the  candidates who  contest elections  so  that  the illiterate voter 11 may cast  his vote  in secrecy in favour of the candidate of his choice  by identifying  him with  the help of the symbol printed on the ballot paper against his name.      It is  true that till recently the Constitution did not expressly refer  to the  existence of political parties. But their existence is implicit in the nature of democratic form of Government  which our  country has  adopted. The use of a symbol, be  it a donkey or an elephant, does give rise to an unifying effect  amongst the  people with a common political and  economic   programme  and   ultimately  helps   in  the establishment of  a Westminster  type of  democracy which we have adopted  with a  Cabinet  responsible  to  the  elected representatives of  the  people  who  constitute  the  Lower House. The political parties have to be there if the present system of  Government should  succeed and the chasm dividing the political parties should be so profound that a change of administration would in fact be a revolution disguised under a constitutional  procedure. It  is no  doubt a paradox that while the  country as  a whole  yields to  no other  in  its corporate sense  of unity  and continuity, the working parts of its  political system  are so organized on party basis in other  words  on  systematized  differences  and  unresolved conflicts.  That  is  the  essence  of  our  system  and  it facilitates the  setting up of a Government by the majority. Although till  recently the  Constitution had  not expressly referred to  the existence  of  political  parties,  by  the amendments made  to it  by  the  Constitution  (Fifty-Second Amendment) Act, 1985 there is now a clear recognition of the political parties by the Constitution. The Tenth Schedule to the Constitution  which is  added by  the above amending Act acknowledges the existence of political parties and sets out

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

the circumstances  when a  member of  Parliament or  of  the State Legislature  would be deemed to have defected from his political party  and would thereby be disqualified for being a member  of the  House concerned.  Hence it is difficult to say that  the reference to recognition, registration etc. of political parties  by the  Symbols Order is unauthorised and against the political system adopted by our country.      Paragraph 15  of the Symbols Order which dealt with the power of  the Commission  in relation  to splinter groups or rival sections  of a  recognised political party came up for consideration before  this Court in Sadiq Ali & Anr. etc. v. Election Commission  of India  & Ors.  etc. [1972]  2 S.C.R. 318.      The Court observed in that case at pages 341-343 thus: 12           "It would  follow from  what  has  been  discussed           earlier in  this judgment  that the  Symbols Order           makes detailed  provisions  for  the  reservation,           choice  and   allotment   of   symbols   and   the           recognition of  political  parties  in  connection           therewith.  That  the  Commission  should  specify           symbols  for   elections  in   parliamentary   and           assembly  constituencies   has  also   been   made           obligatory by rule 5 of Conduct of Election Rules.           Sub-rule (4)  of Rule  10 gives  a  power  to  the           Commission to  issue general or special directions           to  the  Returning  Officers  in  respect  of  the           allotment of  symbols. m e allotment of symbols by           the Returning  Officers has  to be  in  accordance           with those  directions. Sub-rule  (5) of  rule  10           gives  power  to  the  Commission  to  revise  the           allotment of a symbol by the Returning Officers in           80 far  as the said allotment is inconsistent with           the directions issued by the Commission. It would,           there  fore,   follow  that  Commission  has  been           clothed with plenary powers by the above mentioned           Rules in  the matter  of allotment of symbols. The           validity of the said Rules has not been challenged           before us. If the Commission is not to be disabled           from exercising  effectively  the  plenary  powers           vested in it in the matter of allotment of symbols           and   for   issuing   directions   in   connection           therewith,  it   is  plainly  essential  that  the           Commission should  have  the  power  to  settle  a           dispute in  case claim  for the  allotment of  the           symbol of  a political  party is made by two rival           claimants. In  case, it  is a  dispute between two           individuals, the method for the settlement of that           dispute is provided by paragraph 13 of the Symbols           Order. If  on the  other hand,  a  dispute  arises           between two rival groups for allotment of a symbol           of a political party on the ground that each group           professes to  be that party, the machinery and the           manner of  resolving such  a dispute  is given  in           para  graph   15.  Paragraph  15  is  intended  to           effectuate and  subserve  the  main  purposes  and           objects of  the Symbols  Order.  me  paragraph  is           designed to  ensure  that  because  of  a  dispute           having arisen  in a political party between two or           more groups,  the entire  scheme  of  the  Symbols           Order  relating  to  the  allotment  of  a  symbol           reserved for  the political  party is  not set  at           naught. m e fact that the power for the settlement           of  such   a  dispute   has  been  vested  in  the           Commission would not constitute a valid ground for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

         assailing the vires 13           of and  striking down paragraph 15. The Commission           is an  authority created  by the  Constitution and           according to  Article  324,  the  superintendence,           direction and  control of  the electoral rolls for           and the  conduct of elections to Parliament and to           the Legislature of every State and of elections to           the offices Of President, and Vice President shall           be vested  in the  Commission. The  fact that  the           power of  resolving a  dispute between  two  rival           groups for  allotment of  symbol  of  a  political           party has  been vested  in such  a high  authority           would raise  a presumption, though rebuttable, and           provide a  guarantee, though not absolute but to a           considerable extent,  that the  power would not be           misused but,  would be  exercised in  a  fair  and           reasonable manner.           There is  also no substance in the contention that           as  power   to  make   provisions  in  respect  to           elections has  been given  to  the  Parliament  by           Article 327  of the Constitution, the power cannot           be  further  delegated  to  the  Commission.  m  e           opening words  of Article  327 are ’subject to the           provisions of  this Constitution’. The above words           indicate that  any law  made by  the Parliament in           exercise of  powers conferred by Article 327 would           be  subject   to  the   other  provisions  of  the           Constitution including Article 324. Article 324 as           mentioned  above  provides  that  superintendence,           direction and control of elections shall be vested           in Election  Commission, It,  therefore, cannot be           said when the Commission issued direction, it does           so not  on its  own behalf  but as the delegate of           some other  authority. It may also be mentioned in           this context  that  when  the  Central  Government           issued  conduct   of  Elections   Rules,  1961  in           exercise of  its powers  under section  169 of the           Representation of  People Act,  1951, it did so as           required by  that section  after consultation with           the Commission.      The above  decision upholds the power of the commission to  recognise  political  parties  and  to  decide  disputes arising amongst  them or  between splinter  groups within  a political party. It also upholds the power of the Commission to issue  the Symbols  Order. m e Court has further observed that it  could not  be said  that when the Commission issued the Symbols  Order it was not doing so on its own behalf but as the delegate of some other 14 authority. m  e power to issue the Symbols Order was held to be comprehended  in the  power of superintendence, direction and control of elections vested in the commission.      Over-ruling the  objection raised as to the validity of the Symbols  Order on  the ground that it was legislative in character and the Commission had no power to issue it in the absence of  entrustment of  the  power  to  make  a  law  in relation to elections, this Court observed in All Party Hill Leaders’ Conference,  Shillong v. Captain M.A. Sangma & Ors. [1978] 1 S.C.R. 393, at page 408 thus:           "It is  not necessary  in this appeal to deal with           the question whether the Symbols Order made by the           Commission is  a piece of legislative activity. It           is  enough   to  hold,   which  we  do,  that  the           Commission is  empowered in  its own  right  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

         Article 324  of the  Constitution and  also  under           rules 5  and 10 of the Rules to make directions in           general in  widest terms  necessary  and  also  in           specific cases  in order to  facilitate a free and           fair election  with promptitude. It is, therefore,           legitimate on  the part  of the Commission to make           general provisions  even in anticipation or in the           light of experience in respect of matters relating           to symbols.  m at would also inevitably require it           to regulate  its own  procedure  in  dealing  with           disputes regarding  choice of  symbols when raised           before  it.  Further  that  would  also  sometimes           inevitably lead  to adjudication  of disputes with           regard to  recognition of  parties or rival claims           to a  particular symbol.  The  Symbols  Order  is,           therefore, a compendium of directions in the shape           of general  provisions to  meet various  kinds  of           situations   appertaining    to   elections   with           particular reference to symbols. The power to make           these directions,  whether  it  is  a  legislative           activity or not, flows from Article 324 as well as           from rules  5 and  10. It  was held  in Sadiq  Ali           (Supra) that  ’if the  Commission  is  not  to  be           disabled from  exercising effectively  the plenary           powers vested  in it in the matter of allotment of           symbol and  for issuing  directions in  connection           therewith,  it   is  plainly  essential  that  the           Commission should  have  the  power  to  settle  a           dispute in  case claim  for the  allotment of  the           symbol of  a political  party is made by two rival           claimants’. It has been 15           held in  Sadiq Ali (Supra) that the Commission has           been   clothed with  plenary powers  by rule 5 and           sub-rules (4)  and (5)  of rule 10 of the Rules in           the matter of allotment of symbols.      In Roop  Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 702, the  same   view is  reiterated. The  Court observed in this case at page 719 as follows :           "The Symbols Order made by the Election Commission           in exercise  of its power under Article 324 of the           Constitution read  with rules  5  and  10  of  the           Conduct of  Elections Rules  and all  other powers           enabling it  in that  behalf, are in the nature of           general  directions   issued   by   the   Election           Commission to  regulate the  mode of  allotment of           symbols to  the contesting  candidates.  It  is  a           matter of  common knowledge  that elections in our           country are  fought on  the basis  of symbols.  It           must but logically follow as a necessary corollary           that the  Symbols Order is an order made under the           Act. Any  other view  would be  destructive of the           very fabric of our system of holding parliamentary           and assembly constituency elections in the country           on the basis of adult suffrage."      Even if  for any  reason, it  is held  that any  of the provisions contained  in the Symbols Order are not traceable to the  Act or  the Rules, the power of the Commission under Article 324(1)  of the  Constitution  which  is  plenary  in character can  encompass all such provisions, Article 324 of the  Constitution  operates  in  areas  left  unoccupied  by legislation and the words ’superintendence’, ’direction’ and ’control’ as  well as  ’conduct of  all elections’  are  the broadest terms  which would  include the  power to  make all such provisions.  (See Mohinder  Singh Gill  &   Anr. v. The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

Chief Election  Commissioner, New  Delhi  &  Ors.  [1978]  2 S.C.R. 272,  and A.C.  Jose v.  Sivan Pillai & Ors. [1984] 3 S.C.R. 74.)      We do  not also  find any  substance in  the contention that the  Central Government  which had  been delegated  the power to  make rules  under section 169 of the Act could not further  delegate   the  power   to  made   any  subordinate legislation  in  the  form  of  the  Symbols  Order  to  the Commission, without  itself being  empowered by  the Act  to such further delegation. Any part of the Symbols Order which cannot be traced to rules 5 and 10 of the Rules can 16 easily be  traced in  this case  to the  reservoir of  power under Article  324(1) which empowers the Commission to issue all directions  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  conducting smooth, free  and fair elections. Our attention is not drawn by the  learned counsel  for the  petitioner to any specific provision in  the   Symbols Order  which cannot  be  brought within the scope of either rule 5 or rule 10 of the Rules or Article 324(1)  of the  Constitution and which is hit by the principle delegatus  non pottes  delegare, i.e.  a  delegate cannot delegate,  the Commission itself in this case being a donee of  plenary  powers  under  Article  324  (1)  of  the Constitution in  connection with  the conduct  of  elections referred to  therein subject  of course  to any  legislation made under  Article 327  and Article 328 of the Constitution read with  Entry 72  in List I or Entry 37 in List II of the Seventh Schedule  to the  Constitution and  the  rules  made thereunder.     While      construing     the     expression ’superintendence’,  ’direction   and  control’   in  Article 324(1), one  has to remember that every norm which lays down a rule  of  conduct  cannot  possibly  be  elevated  to  the position of  legislation or delegated legislation. There are some authorities or persons in certain grey areas who may be sources of  rules of conduct and who at the same time cannot be equated  to authorities  or persons  who can make law, in the strict sense in which it is understood in jurisprudence. A direction  may  mean  an  order  issued  to  a  particular individual or  a precept  which many  may have to follow. It may be  a specific  or a  general order.  One  has  also  to remember that  the source  of power  in  this  case  is  the Constitution, the  highest law  of the  land, which  is  the repository and  source of  all legal  powers and  any  power granted by the Constitution for a specific purpose should be construed liberally  so that  the object for which the power is granted  is effectively  achieved. Viewed from this angle it cannot  be said that any of the provisions of the Symbols Order suffers  from want  of authority  on the  part of  the Commission, which has issued it.      We are  not satisfied  with  the  submission  that  the several evils,  malpractices etc.  which are  alleged to  be existing amongst  the political parties today are due to the Symbols  Order   which  recognises   political  parties  and provides for  their registration  etc. m  e reasons  for the existence of  such evils,  malpractices etc. are to be found elsewhere. The  surer remedy  for getting rid of those evils malpractices etc.  is to  appeal to  the conscience  of  the nation. We  cannot, however,  set aside the Symbols Order on the grounds alleged in the petition.      We dismiss the petition accordingly. N.V.K.                                   Petition dismissed. 17